tv [untitled] February 21, 2011 8:00am-8:30am PST
meeting. they are very loud today. >> it just fell off. good morning. today is wednesday, february 16, 2011. this is the regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to turn off all electronic devices. at this time we will take roll call. [calls roll] commissioner lee is excused. we have a quorum. the next item on the agenda is president's announcements. >> i do not have any announcements. >> then we move on to item no.
3, directors report. item 3a is update on proposed legislation. >> good morning. on the proposed legislation we will be going again and having the legislation reintroduced on the charter amendment to change the name of the department and we hope to have that before you next month. that is all that i have on the proposed legislation at this point. >> do you want to elaborate a little bit better >> id is the same proposal we had last november that got delayed by the mayor. it was the proposal to change the name to the department of building and safety, to be consistent with other large city departments throughout the united states.
>> public comments on this? seeing no one. >> item 3b, system. -- the permit tracking system. >> it will be delayed for one week. >>pam can explain. >> as you issue an rfp, many issues come up. we have to put out several addendums to clarify those questions. i am working with the city attorney's office, we identified possible issues due to technology and the differences between office 2007 and office 2003.
therefore we did put out an agenda and are extending the date for submission from the second of march to the 11th of march. that should not be any great delay. we had to schedule the evaluations throughout the week, some of us really need to be there and one is on vacation. it looks as though we are on schedule. these are normal things that happen. the most important thing for me, it is to make sure that we are comfortable that we have made all of the correct directions to people so that when they come back there is not the reduced possibility of any challenges. >> are they technical or legal?
>> is a combination of both. most of them are -- i am not even sure that i would call them technical. they do not have that much to do with -- we have not got many questions having to do with the system itself. it is more process oriented questions. clarification on what people need to do. this last one, it was technical because of the situation with, you know, the technical word system that microsoft has. but it was not technical in the sense that there was something wrong with our proposal on the system. we run everything by the city attorney's office to make sure that they are comfortable. if we get any challenges, we want to be sure that they will back us up.
>> absolutely. thank you. can you run us through the rest of the deadline again? just so that we are all clear? this is a project that is a priority for all of us. i just want to be clear. march 11 is the deadline for the response? >> and then we go through a process of doing a review for minimum qualification that takes three days. we notify the committee, we notify the vendors that have made it through the minimum qualifications. you always have people submitting and hoping that they will be considered ok. and then we go through ourself. we go through a written evaluation. and that can take between one
week in two weeks. that takes us through the middle of april. and then they will come in. we give them about two weeks notification to do a demonstration. which is scripted. we tell them what they want -- we tell them what we want. >> when is that date? >> is generally set -- and everything becomes general, because we do not have dates until the process goes through, but it is generally set for the middle of, at the end of april. and then we will give them about one week -- between one week in two weeks -- to come and make their arrangements to come back and talk to the higher level
group of policymakers. which is called the somewhere in between the joint coordinating committee and steering committee. it is the joint coordinating committee with a couple of people substituted out. it is an oral presentation. after that we get back into mid- may. we issue the intent to award a contract. >> so, you are saying the middle of may? >> and then we start the negotiations for the contract. that is when it gets even less clear. i am hoping that contract negotiations will take no more than three months. this, you know, it really depends on -- there are a lot of
problems -- if it is local, if it is designed well, if it is in a state where we want it and have no issues with it the contract -- you know, the contract language. there are like lots and lots of kinds of things. last time we worked two months into april and we were starting to get things moving along. so, a lot of it is just related to understanding. once we do that, i am hoping that no later than august they will start on the contract. >> they will begin working? >> right. >> that is the hope.
>> right. and then we said we wanted and implementation by and no more than 24 months. >> ok. that is helpful. thank you. >> i do not mean to be vague. >> i get it. this helps. >> and i will keep you informed. >> yes, you will. >> commissioner? >> yes, sir. >> i have just heard that our applications continue to be set back. it has been over one year. categorizing simple items from categories that take place, even when i go to boot up from 2003 to 2007 and microsoft, word, office, all of that, it has been very simple. i do know -- do not know why it is taking all of this additional
time when we really just need to get this in place. that is basically my comment here. the expectation had been set back over one year. and now we are being set back again. i find it very disturbing that this entire process just continues to be extended. by the time it gets put in place, there might be equipment or other systems that need to get integrated. the more that we continue to delay, we keep on being at the mercy of more changes. >> so, these weeks that we are adding is basically due to the possibility of opening up the functional, a technical document, which is 63 pages
long and they do not know how to use the system. therefore, rather than having a situation where we would have the possibility of someone coming in, say i only see 32, but you say 63 -- what is the issue, it seems that it was prudent to give them another week. i wanted it to be one week and the other department that i was working with said they wanted to add a couple of days. i perfectly understand that frustration. i feel the same frustration on this project. we had quite a long, protracted negotiation between us and planning in terms of roles and responsibilities.
it was very difficult because when you negotiate, you expect both sides to move. we had some issues. once that was done we started working on the rfp. frankly, you know, it did take a long time. much of that was due to not having sufficient staff. much of it was due to making sure, as i mentioned before, that what we have people would be happy with and that we would get what we wanted. i cannot say who is going to come back and bid. we have told people that they need to bid, that the technology has to be cutting edge. and we are working with the
department of technology to make sure that the degree to which it is cutting edge, the 24 months, may be able to be shortened. i would love to do that if the negotiations go well. and they have ways of doing that. we -- i do not believe that we can get some kind of bonus for contracts. for construction, bonuses for coming in shorter. i am not sure that we can do that with this kind of thing. but we will do what we can to shorten this. i understand your frustration. >> 3 m of 5? >> we go through whoever -- three? five? >> we go through whoever submits. once we have done through those
is shortened to three. after the demo, we go down to two. and we have talked with a joint coordinating committee with those. the reason we are doing a joint coordinating committee, frankly, this is a group of high-level people who have the vision and are involved with the rest of the department, the mayor's office, and have a vision of what it is that the city wants to do in a long term. all of the other people up there are experts in their field. so that we get what we need, but we need to have that extra layer looking towards the real policy and whether it meets the policy. >> thank you. >> you mentioned the word experts in the field.
are these experts or city employees? >> they are city employees from many different departments. >> there is no outside agency? >> no. >> that explains that. >> the reason for that is because we, number one, but have different rules in san francisco in terms of the use of technology. in our building walls and planning rules, they are different. no. 2, the majority of the entities, like the building and planning department, they already have their own permanent tracking systems and we did not want to introduce a bias towards one or the other.
>> the frustration comes out of the fact that it is not just one year, but this is 10 years. i think that this process is frustrating everyone. much of what we talked about, these issues that we try to find -- that we try to find solutions for, when we look at those challenges in dealing with planning and working with other departments, it is understandable that it takes so long. but i attended every meeting to get a break down and maybe a printed calendar to have us commit to that. i think that august -- is too late. it cannot be pushed again.
i would like the commission to be actively involved, if you need us, in assistance for this process. maybe it is the planning and commission meetings that we are going behalf that will be utilized to make sure that we do not hit obstacles once we get going. i know that it is a hard process. sometimes like pushing water uphill. i think that what you are hearing is that we are united in wanting to implement. >> i would be glad to come back with information. i just do not see it, if it is going to in any way jeopardize our ability, i hope he will take that into perspective. i do not want to give more information into scheduling until we get to the point where i can share that. >> i agree.
but having a general idea of what we are aiming at, perhaps seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, really needing to move this forward. >> the second thing that i would like to point out is that we were very clear in the rfp proposal conference, none of the vendors are supposed to contact anyone. any people that are involved in working in the city, any other office, including you guys. again, i do not want to have any sense of jeopardize impact. i think that all of us are trying to protect the integrity. >> great. >> i understand everyone's frustration with this a little bit.
>> one day they made a statement saying that we started this, started talking about this project. and i am now 60. it is 10 years later. that is six years ago. actually, 16. no disrespect, but you just arrived on the scene. public comment? three minu good morning, commis. commissioner walker, i would like to ask you to maybe not wait until august to decide that this is not moving fast enough. get some consideration between now and when you have a chance
to think about what you can do to find a fork in the road this sooner. i do not want to wait until august to find out that maybe we need further involvement. i will not come here to beat up on people. it does not achieve anything. i am respectful of the fact that this is not an easy process. i do take some solace from the fact that the rfp process is out there. that is tangible to me. i can see it. i strongly urge the commission to put this as a standard agenda item. on every commission hearing from here on in. it is that exposure and follow up that makes things happen. like it or not, we need to admit that the lack of exposure and follow up is also a contributory
factor to why it is 16 years later. the fact that we keep harping on this -- and i hope that mr. director and pamela will understand that we are trying to keep this in the public light to keep this moving on. that is what helps to keep us focused. including yours truly. without a fire underneath me, i will move on to something else. i think it should be a standard item agenda with measurable improvements. three months sounds like a long time to be in protracted negotiations with a prospective vendor. i do not know why that is. based on the last time, i am thinking that as a result of what happened the last time -- if we are in the private sector, which i know that we are not, but if you came back to say that it would be three months after
you had decided on a vendor, i would be fired on the spot. over the last few weeks i have worked on a much smaller scale, putting everyone on two microsoft office 2010, windows 2007. in the time that it took me to do that, we could update the system in less than 24 months if i had a good team around me. lastly, i would love to get a presentation from the technical people and architects behind the system to give us an overview of what it will look like next time. >> next speaker? seeing no one. >> we can move on to item number 3c, update on other activities
affecting administration of the department. >> in your binders we have added the notices to the small business association. they have been prepared in more than six languages, at the expense of the small business administration. we will be distributing these at community outreach programs to get the word out more about the ada issues and what we can do to help small business people with those issues. >> what kind about reach would be conducted? -- what kind about reached -- what kind of out reach would be conducted? >> we have attended community
fairs, where we have handed out brochures and other items. we also have made our staff available for anyone that wants to meet with staff on these issues. so, we are getting the word out that we are available to help. call and arrange with us to come in. >> is there a proactive series of dates on a quarterly or annual basis? >> not right now. this is just starting with the small business association. a simple task force has been formed within communities. >> thank you. >> is there any money in the budget for this? >> the brochure has been provided by the small business association and community outreach on staff time. we do have money in the budget for community outreach items
that have been needed for this. >> how much? >> about 25,000. >> commissioner mar? >> were these given out when the permits were issued? >> hopefully we are giving them out prior to the issuance. when people come out to look at how you issue these, it should be proactive rather than reactive after the fact. we are trying to get them out to the architect and engineering community to make sure that they design buildings with ada issues in mind and if you are purchasing a new business, we want this out to the business owners. >> commissioner walker? >> thank you. this is a great first step. if people do not remember, we've met with the small business commission so that our
departments could work together. bringing up the issue of community outreach, at one point we had regular dbi days. i think that we did it at the bill bram auditorium one year. the goal of that would be to update the public about what is happening on issues with the public. i know that the budget issues are different these days. especially as we talk about the changes that we will be suggesting around seismic strengthening, the ada issues, our new system. maybe we should think about doing it in conjunction with community groups to get a building department to do this kind about reach and to try to minimize the cost. i think that if we are making enough changes, it warrants community of reach. maybe we could think about that.
-- warrants community outreach. maybe we could think about that. >> public comments on this, please? you have three minutes. >> john [unintelligible] from the san francisco coalition for responsible growth. i would like to comment on an experience that i had when i got a hold dataholdhold of a 3r rep. on the third of february this month i went to the 3r office, requested the report, paying a fee of $160.
once i got the report i was told it would take five to seven days. they were looking at it right on the computer and could have printed for me. there was nothing unusual about this report. no adjustments needed to be made for a client or anything like that. i got a call yesterday saying that they were ready to transmit the report to me. there were difficulties in the transmission, so i said i would come over this morning to pick it up. but in that time of 14 days, even taking out the weekends that is a long time. i would ask the director and commissioners, if there is not an unusual element to getting that report, why can we not take up right there and then?